The FINAL Thread on what "atheist/m" actually means!

[keilj]

As usual, I've been pipped by Orphan.

This is so absurd as to almost be beyond comment.

I don't know any atheists that spend any time at all thinking about god.

A few of us are interested in religion.

Wow, I thought you were a pretty honest guy. But this is a blatant lie

let's keep the conversation honest Atheist - you've used the word god 40 times in this thread so far - no time at all thinking about him huh

[OrphanPip]

I'm not aware of polls about atheist leaderships, I heard there's some issues with Protestants vs. Catholics on the presidency level. But that's ages ago. Now it's all about who has a better spin on jumpstarting the economy.

There was a CNN poll conducted where people were asked if they would vote for a person if they were black, a woman, a mormon, a catholic, an atheist, or gay. I'm having trouble finding that article though, I remember it on TV and circulating a lot around the election time, but searches for keywords like atheism, CNN, popular seem to just turn up articles about people thinking Obama is an atheist, which is in turn being used as a character assault on Obama, like the Muslim accusations.

Fox News conducted a poll in 1999 that found that 69% of respondents wouldn't vote for an atheist. In 2003 they conducted a similar poll on religions, the worst performer was Islam, with 47% saying they would be less likely to vote for someone if they were Muslim.

in 2008, atheist were slightly more popular than Scientologist, but still more unpopular than muslims.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251802,00.html

[MarkBastable]

Either they don't see it, or don't want to admit it, just the fact that they can't stop from coming into religious threads, the God(s) that they don't believe in actually controls their lives.

I do wish you wouldn't come barging into this atheist thread. Although you can't see it or won't admit it, atheism evidently controls your life.

[Leland Gaunt]

Wow, I thought you were a pretty honest guy. But this is a blatant lie

let's keep the conversation honest Atheist - you've used the word god 40 times in this thread so far - no time at all thinking about him huh

Well, I am a little doubtful as to not any time thinking about god, but I do find that when people see the unlikelihood of God, most focus on some other aspect of life. I rarely ever talk about God outside of the internet, and only in politics or conversations involving a misrepresentation of atheism do I interject.

Atheism has been a theory, an antagonistic theory and nothing beyond that. It is a reaction to believers only and in itself it is drivel.

What? I'm really confused as to what your trying to say. How is it drivel?

there's always a bit of that on both sides, but just don't trash other people's faith and do any naming calling like the guy in the sky but much worse. Just yesterday there was another inflammatory post about the Pope but thankfully it was quickly deleted by the mods.

There is an enormous difference between tolerance and respect.

I do wish you wouldn't come barging into this atheist thread. Although you can't see it or won't admit it, atheism evidently controls your life.

[The Atheist]

Wow, I thought you were a pretty honest guy. But this is a blatant lie

let's keep the conversation honest Atheist - you've used the word god 40 times in this thread so far - no time at all thinking about him huh

Brilliant!

You talk of honesty then make that comment?

Given that I'm here stressing that atheists do not believe in god/s, it's impossible to discuss atheism without using the word, unless I resort to "deity/ies" which is much less finger-friendly. Is this a ploy to cause me RSI?

I have to say that that's probably the silliest post I've ever seen on any bulletin board.

[Serena03]

A belief system indicates by definition:

'faith based on a series of beliefs but not formalized into a religion; also, a fixed coherent set of beliefs prevalent in a community or society'

If an atheist is only defined as 'one who lacks belief in a god or deity' then this could not be justified a belief system as a single belief could not hold out as a complete system.

However, depending on an individual's degree of 'atheism,' their way of living may also come with a set of 'fixed and coherent beliefs' with 'lack of belief in God' as its main catalyst which may include:

-belief that there is no god/deity
-belief that there is no afterlife
-belief in the doctrine of evolution
-belief in a moral and content life without the need of a god
-belief that the more constituted religions are unnecessary and tend to do more evil than good
-belief that the universe did not begin with God nor is it endured by God

Even though these beliefs vary with each individual, they probably have more affect on the individual themselves rather than an entire culture or community, unless they let it affect the community(but it is not usually a case). Nevertheless they could qualify as a personal belief system as these beliefs have yet to be universally declared as facts. Our whole way of living is based upon a belief system by how we see concepts as more fitting and efficient in accordance to our own common sense and reason. A life lived without God could be a belief one sees fitting to their life. But if one really opposes a certain system, there is no need to congregate under the same stylistics as what militant atheists do.

Atheism may be 'without belief in God,' however, it is still not without belief. It is actually logically impossible not to believe in anything, as each opposing thought is really just belief in the opposite, unless fact succeeds the belief.

As a deeply religious non-believer myself, I have no problem admitting that I have beliefs and hold belief of life without a god. But I tend to refrain from using the title 'atheist' as it seems too ambiguous, self-contradicting and conform. I am however, without worship in anything, without desire of an immortal life, without the use of God as the ultimate answer for everything and a immensely high believer in goodness with evil as a reluctant counter-balance. I an not sure exactly how this categorizes me, but it is easy enough to just refer to myself as simply just 'complacent.'

[Haunted]

There was a CNN poll conducted where people were asked if they would vote for a person if they were black, a woman, a mormon, a catholic, an atheist, or gay. I'm having trouble finding that article though, I remember it on TV and circulating a lot around the election time, but searches for keywords like atheism, CNN, popular seem to just turn up articles about people thinking Obama is an atheist, which is in turn being used as a character assault on Obama, like the Muslim accusations.

Fox News conducted a poll in 1999 that found that 69% of respondents wouldn't vote for an atheist. In 2003 they conducted a similar poll on religions, the worst performer was Islam, with 47% saying they would be less likely to vote for someone if they were Muslim.

in 2008, atheist were slightly more popular than Scientologist, but still more unpopular than muslims.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251802,00.html

would you vote for a high school dropout...do you want someone with excessive BMI to rule the country... how do you feel about a president who snorts when he/she laughs...They poll everything. I personally have no problem with an atheist president, but Scientologist, that's a differnt story. I wouldn't like a president wearing an alumium foil hat with an anntenna.

I do wish you wouldn't come barging into this atheist thread. Although you can't see it or won't admit it, atheism evidently controls your life.

No sir, I didn't barge in. Atheism doesn't control my life. Neither does religion.

Came in here because it says it's the "final" word, just wanted to see if the curtains came down and when the gigantuan strobe light display starts over the Atlantic.

[OrphanPip]

would you vote for a high school dropout...do you want someone with excessive BMI to rule the country... how do you feel about a president who snorts when he/she laughs...They poll everything. I personally have no problem with an atheist president, but Scientologist, that's a differnt story. I wouldn't like a president wearing an alumium foil hat with an anntenna.

I'm just saying it's indicative of high levels of mistrust and dislike of atheist in the general American population. Muslims and atheist are, at least for the poll respondents, unfit for leadership by virtue of their views on religion. There is still a heavy emphasis placed on the specifically Christian values of American politicians, with some moderate tolerance for Jews. I say it's probably true that many atheist have antagonistic views towards the religious, but there is a similar, if not higher, level of dislike of atheism by the religious that is usually brushed aside when people decide to criticize the militant atheist.

Hell, when an atheist group decided to advertise on buses it caused an uproar, I don't think there's ever been an atheist letter campaign to ban religious ads. Likewise, ads for atheist groups are routinely targeted for vandalism.

The attempt to paint atheist as merely trouble makers and the religious as benign victims of the angry insecure atheist ignores the reality of how these issues seem to play out in reality.

[The Atheist]

However, depending on an individual's degree of 'atheism,' their way of living may also come with a set of 'fixed and coherent beliefs' with 'lack of belief in God' as its main catalyst which may include:

-belief that there is no god/deity
-belief that there is no afterlife
-belief in the doctrine of evolution
-belief in a moral and content life without the need of a god
-belief that the more constituted religions are unnecessary and tend to do more evil than good
-belief that the universe did not begin with God nor is it endured by God

Some of those bear no relation to atheism, which really is just a lack of belief in god/s.

Atheism may be 'without belief in God,' however, it is still not without belief. It is actually logically impossible not to believe in anything, as each opposing thought is really just belief in the opposite, unless fact succeeds the belief.

I only find one belief necessary - that reality exists. Once we get past that, everything else has conformed to empirical investigation.

[hoope]

Man ! I was trying to read the whole posts.. reached until 3 or 4 ...
couldn't resist replying...

There were many comments that i liked .. and infact suppported ; among which JBI 's

If atheism is so progressive and true, and more moral, or whatever, lets see some charity work, and community work, and progressive attitude, rather than some crying cyberbullying. As it is, whether you believe in god or not is particularly irrelevant. What is irrelevant is how well you treat the people around you, and how well one contributes to the society they are in. If someone was an Atheist or a Muslim, or a Buddhist, or whatever, I wouldn't care as long as they don't go around preaching how much truer their nonsense is, and actually do things for those around them.

All you do is cheapen nonbelieving to suit your own political agenda, and quite frankly, the manner in which you carry it out is insulting to both those with religious affiliation, and those of us, like me, without it, who don't want to be grouped together with hateful preachers.


Simply put, the flaw with your reasoning is its hypocrisy - you define atheism as a state of consciousness - by necessity then you are promoting a movement, rather than a non-belief - you are believing in your standpoint, as apposed to not considering the question. The same way evolution is taken as a doctrine in opposition to creationism, as apposed to a simple scientific principle, like gravity, without any real political affiliation.

Originally Posted by keilj
I've noticed that atheists spend more time thinking about/pondering/discussing/worrying about God than people who actually believe there is a God

So as i see it .. and since we are talking about what atheism means ..
It's somelanguages the word Atheism mean ABSTANING FROM THE INTENDED or from whats intended .
In religion .. it mostly stands for denying God !


Now where comes the big issue .. because Atheism is not belief.. BUT however , they tend to make it that way .. Many ATHEISMS defend it , the create this as a religion.. as something with a base or something which was there since Adam and Eve.. They try to be atheistic in every behavior , act , teaching .. and mostly in everything !!!
So the problem is not Atheism itself.. but its the Atheist.

And if we want to discuss this .. i guess we will be dragged into many things .. and Scheherazade will end up closing this thread

We will end up into couple points most of which :
- The prove that he world was created
- The prove that there is God
- and the prove that there is only one God ..

and .. and .. and ... and..
We have discussed this over and over again .. and i yet don't know why most of the atheist ( as said by keilj ) spend more time in discussing and arguing..

Whats the point ? and where it will take us ?
Do you want us to admit that Atheism is right .. or that YOU are right ? Or its just for the sake of discussion !!!!

[MarkBastable]

If atheism is so progressive and true, and more moral, or whatever, lets see some charity work, and community work, and progressive attitude....


I think you're missing the point. The Atheist is not saying that atheism is more moral or progressive or anything. I'm sure he'd agree that an atheist mass murderer is just as likely as a Catholic or Sikh mass murderer. Equally, an atheist is as likely as a Baptist or a Jainist to dive in to the river to save a puppy from drowning.

Theists do not have a monopoly on insane cruelty or on selfless loveliness. Both those qualities seem to be pretty evenly distributed across all human beings, whatever worldview they profess.

No sir, I didn't barge in. Atheism doesn't control my life. Neither does religion.

Likewise. Please remember that next time you see me contributing my atheist views in a thread about God.

[Serena03]

Some of those bear no relation to atheism, which really is just a lack of belief in god/s.

If we are only defining 'atheism' by one principle, then it is true that it could not constitute as a 'religion' or 'belief system.' However, many atheists would use similar beliefs like these as reasons not to believe. A theist as well may be simply defined as one who believes, also not a constituted religion on its own, but there is generally more advocacy involved so a single conclusion can be made. But an individual's constitution of fixed beliefs which leads to one singular belief could be justified as a 'belief system' for drawing a conclusion of belief or disbelief.

I only find one belief necessary - that reality exists. Once we get past that, everything else has conformed to empirical investigation.

Are there no supporting claims as to why you only believe in this? It seems empirical investigation has already been endlessly going as to what exactly 'reality' is as well as existence, leading to more questions or beliefs that are less likely to ever be answered, thus we are forever stuck on belief.

[Haunted]

I'm just saying it's indicative of high levels of mistrust and dislike of atheist in the general American population. Muslims and atheist are, at least for the poll respondents, unfit for leadership by virtue of their views on religion. There is still a heavy emphasis placed on the specifically Christian values of American politicians, with some moderate tolerance for Jews. I say it's probably true that many atheist have antagonistic views towards the religious, but there is a similar, if not higher, level of dislike of atheism by the religious that is usually brushed aside when people decide to criticize the militant atheist.

Hell, when an atheist group decided to advertise on buses it caused an uproar, I don't think there's ever been an atheist letter campaign to ban religious ads. Likewise, ads for atheist groups are routinely targeted for vandalism.

The attempt to paint atheist as merely trouble makers and the religious as benign victims of the angry insecure atheist ignores the reality of how these issues seem to play out in reality.

Pip, I'm sorry you feel that way. I personally had no opinion of atheism and I'm really not aware of any campaign against atheism. I don't talk religion with my friends, I've known them for years and didn't know what their faith is until they get married and I have to find my way to the church.

However I uses past tense saying I had no opinion, that because I now do, and that started on Litnet as I read more and more hateful posts ridiculing or even attacking religion and God. But I assure you, I would not stereotype atheists as being obnoxious as a group based on the behavior I witnessed here. I have made a great atheist friend here, we share views on this subject early on but most of the time we just chat about our lives, talk about books, share music...

As far as American distrust of atheist and muslims in key political leadership, a lot has to do with the fact that this country is founded on Christian principles and values, that's what attracted countless immigrants here. Or else the society built by Christians produced such a favorable environment that anyone can enjoy, people just want it to stay that way.

But it goes beyond religion. We have to consider the policies as a result of a leadership from those who hold very different religious (or the lack of) values. This may result in political alliances that would impact the welfare and security of the country. Back in the day Protestants were suspicious of Catholic leadership too, but as I understand it, part of it was on a policy and political level.

I assume you are atheist. If you take up US citizenship and run for president, I wouldn't rule you out, and so will a percentage of the population no matter how small it is. If you are well spoken, reasonable, (which you seem to be in your reply posts to me, sparing any insults), I would certainly consider you. But mind you, we are not big on curling here, and if you want to make us a curling country, I doubt if you'd have a chance.

[The Atheist]

Whats the point ? and where it will take us ?
Do you want us to admit that Atheism is right .. or that YOU are right ? Or its just for the sake of discussion !!!!

I'll assume you're serious in asking those questions and answer accordingly.

I don't care whether people are theist, atheist or agnostic.

The point of the thread is exactly as it say on the title - what "atheism" means, not whether it's right.

If we are only defining 'atheism' by one principle, then it is true that it could not constitute as a 'religion' or 'belief system.'

Bingo!

It truly is that simple.

However, many atheists would use similar beliefs like these as reasons not to believe.

Sure, but as I have repeatedly said, atheism isn't a group or a doctrine, so the only criterion needed to self-identify as one is lacking a belief in god. This includes:

People who say "There is no god"
Panpspermians. (I really want to meet one of these, I know they are out there)
David Icke
Hundreds of millions of Buddhists

A theist as well may be simply defined as one who believes,...

No, theism is just as simple - a theist is someone who believes there is one god, of the "personal" variety to use Eonstein's terms, although it doesn't feel right.

Buddhists alone ruin that position, because the vast majority of them do not believe in a god. I know quite a number of Buddhists that cheerfully admit to being atheists.

... also not a constituted religion on its own, but there is generally more advocacy involved so a single conclusion can be made.

Except not even all theists need a conclusion. The Church of England is happily agnostic in congregational terms.

Are there no supporting claims as to why you only believe in this? It seems empirical investigation has already been endlessly going as to what exactly 'reality' is as well as existence, leading to more questions or beliefs that are less likely to ever be answered, thus we are forever stuck on belief.

Again, I find this extremely simple. If I look at every single philosophical, metaphysical, supernatural, paranormal [and tautological!] claim ever made, there is one inescapable dichotomy:

Reality exists or it does not.

Solipsism just doesn't cut it for me.

Since I learned to learn, empirical investigation has a 100% track record in predicting and verifying how the universe I perceive works. If reality exists, so do those empirical conclusions.

That I believe reality exists doesn't bother me philosophically for a millisecond.

However I uses past tense saying I had no opinion, that because I now do, and that started on Litnet as I read more and more hateful posts ridiculing or even attacking religion and God.

Again, the same assertion?

Where is your evidence?

I don't believe there is a shred of evidence that there are "hateful posts ridiculing and attacking religion and God.", so I have had to go and check it out myself.

I currently have open the first.....13, dammit! threads that feature god/s and religions.

Out of thousands of posts, there are two that could be classed as ridiculing religion. (I have ignored the Buddhist threads for reasons which should be obvious)

On the other hand, I can point to several dozen instances where the assertion is made that atheists on this site attack religion. You are not the only one that believes this and it is demonstrable - and now demonstrated - that the assertion is incorrect.

Please don't confuse my stance on the present pope as being an attack on religion; I repeatedly extol the virtues of Rowan Williams just as do the opposite to Ratzinger - I think he is a bad example of human being, nothing to do with Catholicism.

[Dodo25]

Now it's at least somewhat on topic:

If you are doubting something you should read both arguments against and in favor of. And there are quite a number of arguments for the existence of god, both old and new. Also, even being an agnostic myself, I find the notion that atheism (or agnosticism) involves "having no beliefs" very strange. Sure, you don't believe in one thing - god - but then if you think that the statement "god is real" is false, and if you think that doesn't make sense, then you'd have a whole lot of beliefs about astronomy, geology, biology, etc. How? Let me explain. Everywhere around the world, all of this was first explained by religion - then came science, and had to work very hard to establish new paradigms. It wouldn't make much sense to be an atheist in the modern sense of the world in, let's say, 1300AD - if you didn't believe in god, back then, you couldn't even explain why stars moved in the night sky. Well, of course things are different today - but, at least if you are a "Dawkinsonian" atheist, you'd still would have to express a belief that the scientific method is our best shot at understanding the world (and why, you'd even have to believe in "truth", and that itself is very problematic).

The case is crystal clear, no argument for god is even remotely convincing (so far, I'm willing to listen if anyone comes up with something new). And atheism really doesn't involve any beliefs, it's simply the absence of a belief in god. And as a side note, labeling yourself 'agnostic' doesn't really make sense, because a) mosts atheists are 'agnostic atheists', meaning they don't claim to have absolute knowledge, and b) by saying you're an agnostic, you make it sound like you think the possibility whether god exists is about 50%, so you're not even confident enough to take a position. Unless that actually is your view, in which case I'm of course wondering whether you think the possibility of Narnia being in someone's wardrobe is about 50% too for you, and if not, what difference there is between god and Narnia, if both aren't supported by evidence.

One doesn't need to be able to explain things god used to explain in order to not believe. Before Darwin wrote 'Origin of Species', Hume pointed out that 'God' isn't an explanation. Even children ask the question 'who created god', clearly noticing the problem. I'll never understand how people can be satisfied with god as an explanation.

And Plato noticed thousands of years ago that god isn't needed for morality either. If 'good' is what god says is good, then he might as well have said that torturing children is good. If god has other criteria for telling what is 'good', then so do we.

Darwin made it possible to be an 'intellectually fulfilled' atheist, but even before, believing in god just didn't make sense. It's better to admit 'I DONT KNOW' instead of just ascribing everything you don't know to something that is even more difficult to explain than the thing you were wondering about in the first place.

'Belief' in the scientific method? Yes. 'Faith' in the scientific method? Hell no. Belief can be based on evidence, faith isn't. The scientific record has an outstanding track record. Logic and rationality is needed for even having a discussion, so not accepting them would disqualify you anyway. And there's nothing really problematic about 'truth', some postmodernists just like to think there is.

I'm sorry, but there are quite a few things wrong with this post. For one you seem to be equivocating on the definition of "agnostic." You assume (in one place) that it can be boiled down to a belief in probability, likewise can atheism, and hence the concept of "agnostic atheist" would make no sense, since they would be mutually exclusive belief systems. Moreover, the whole idea of boiling it down to beliefs in probability is pathetically Dawkinsion and misleading. Most agnostics would not pretend they know the probability at all ... the fact that Dawkins thinks they do demonstrates how ignorant he really is ... and that he maintains this idea belies any claim of an "agnostic atheist" since, saying that you think there is, say, a 99% chance that god doesn't exist makes a quite positive and theoretical claim about the nature of God, and dismisses God on those accounts, instead of practical ones.

Everyone uses different definitions of the noun 'agnostic'. Some use it as in 'one can never know' (being consistent, these people would have to use the same reasoning for ghosts, unicors or Narnia), some use it as in 'I don't believe in god, but there could be one', in that case, they are atheists and just confusing everyone including themselves, and finally, some use it in the sense 'I'm totally undecided and don't want to take a stand either way'. Those last ones are the ones I refer to as 'agnostics', because knowing nothing except that someone calls himself an 'agnostic', I grant him the only definition of the word that actually makes sense. But it's never wrong to ask for clarification. So yeah, the last definition of agnostics sorta assigns a probability, but it reflects the personal attitude on the issue and isn't regarded as an objective estimate or whatever. The 'we just can't know' definition is probably the one most used, but I think everyone who uses it is making a huge mistake having to do with the burden of proof. In short, if something does exist, it is possible to find evidence for it. So that's why I think that definition sucks.

Now, and this makes things even more complicated, there's also an adjective 'agnostic'. One that actually does have a precise meaning (thank God!): noncommittal or undogmatic. Thus, used as an adjective, any atheist who doesn't claim to have absolute knowledge is an agnostic atheist. In the same way, I'm don't believe in the tooth fairy, but I'm not dogmatic about it, which makes me an agnostic a-toothfairyist.

Also, of course atheists don't need to assign a probability to their beliefs. They can if they want to, but technically, as this thread here has hopefully established, atheists just don't believe in god, whether they would put the probability of non-existence at 51% (in which case there'd be a case for Pascal's wager), 99.99999999999999%, or 100%.

Science is wracked by the same absurdities as religion. The religious will maintain that God always was and will be. Some scientists will maintain the exact same thing about the nature of energy. Tell me how the claim latter make has more merit than the former? But in any case, who created energy? Who created time and space? Why does time travel forward? If there are a billion possible realities why this one? In the end, it is usually reconciled as a fundamental absurdity ... or the children are usually with a good licking..

Check out the bolded statement again in the quoted post of mine.

Why the latter claims has more merit? Well for one thing, 'energy' doesn't claim to care about your well-being, or whether you worship it, or whether whatever it is predestined to do will produce conscious beings or not. And for another thing, scientists didn't learn of 'energy' by studying an ancient book, but they actually found evidence for its existence. You have two alternatives, one a totally wasteful, conscious super-intelligent being, and the other as simple as possible, always-existing quantum fluctuation (our concept of 'zero' is a construct because in reality, there's always some quantum fluctuation, tiny particles popping in and out of existence), which one should you chose?. Ockham's razzor cuts god into tiny quantum particles (I just thought of that, how original!).

If there's a million possible realities, why this one? Well, string theory suggests there's 10^500 possible realities, and they all are. Lots of parallel universes out there. Every possible combination of fundamental constants allowed by the Callabi-Yau shape of the additional seven hidden dimensions (I'm no physicists though, I have no idea what a Callabi-Yau shape is, but anyway, it sounds kinda cool and I definitely have more reason to trust astro-physicists on astrophysics than ancient goat herders on astrophysics.

Of course, string theory isn't yet universally accepted. But it's a promising approach, and even if wrong, something like it would actually make sense, compared to 'god' it would actually explain some troubling things, i.e. why the universe just happens to be friendly for life. Answer: There are so incredibly many of it one of them almost has to be, and obviously we can't be in the ones that don't support life.

Think the same thing trough with god: why does the one thing (god) that always exists want to consciously create a universe? Why is that one thing already conscious, and why does it have a plan, and where the hell did that plan come from if it contains something that would just as well working without a conscious plan-haver?? (Also, why does 'he' want to be worshipped? And why does he have a son, and what about the ghost? But yeah, you're probably talking about the 'impersonal' god, because no one with decent education takes the Bible literally. Well, what use is that god for? There aren't even any gaps left in science really. You have quantum stuff or god, and whatever you choose it won't really make a practical difference because the definition of god has been crippled in order to not contradict science. The only difference it makes is that your faced with having to explain why theres a conscious being just eternally existing. Good luck with that.)

Also, where is the evidence that your evidence is significant, and where is the evidence for that evidence? At some point your "belief" is reduced to "faith" in a certain (set of) article(s) of evidence. Moreover, the theist doesn't unequivocally dismiss logic or rationality ... Aquinas couldn't make his arguments otherwise. Science and the emphasis on evidence are not the necessary (logical) consequences of logicality. Logic is simply the negative form of the truth; in other words, if something follows the logical form we can accept its conclusion as following from its premises. But since there can never be a test for positive truth (for if there were, we'd have to subject it to itself, which would render its validity based on a circular, and thus untrustable, argument) we can never with any apodictic certainty know if our premises are true. But what makes men 'assume' science or religion is that these belief systems tend to make them happier..

People don't have 'faith' in science. They have reasonable evidence to believe science works. Ever flown with a plane and landed in the right spot? Even when they lost your luggage along the way, you gotta admit that this wouldn't just happen if science was nonsense. The computer in front of you? Just happend to arrange itself? The moon landing? The accurate prediction of time-relativity in two watches, one still, one orbitting the earth at high speed? Or hold on, how can we proof that the empirical confirmation of a staggering prediction isn't nonsense? Why is nonsense nonsense and not something else? Why is anything anything? Why broat greendo panscake? I'm sorry, if you abolish logic itself, I might as well say god is a ham sandwich. You lose all basis to even have a discussion. If that's truly your belief, why bother to make a (somewhat) coherent argument? Hypo(crit).

And there's nothing really problematic about 'truth', some postmodernists just like to think there is. ... where is the "truth" and argument in this? This sounds more like a dogma. For the reason above expounded, the range of things which have universal validity is fairly small. It applies to math, some logical principles, the existence of space and time, and perhaps some other rules (such as cause and effect) ... though some of these things are only "true" in so far as we need to presume them before we can proceed in our some of our inferential affairs, while sensibility itself does not necessitate them. A good example of this is cause and effect, where our capacity to experience does not exclude the metaphysical doctrine of preestablished harmony; however, we must deny the belief if we are to proceed in many of our (scientific) inferential affairs. This type of "truth" is contrasted with, for example, space and time, which must exist in order for experience to occur.

Oops, looks like you do accept logic and math. Never mind my last few sentences then. Anyway, how about this definition of truth: truth := whatever best predicts reality. We might not have it perfectly right, but at least right enough to make damn good predictions. And what else do we really need anyway?

Is there even a reality? I say there is. It feels like one. Prediction fulfilled, case closed.

Could we be living in a matrix? Technically yes, but Ockham's razzor speaks against it, as does the ethical argument that whoever would've created that matrix is a jerk, and generelly, highly evolved beings aren't jerks (because they would've killed each other before they'd reached such advanced technology). So no, most likely not.